A series of meta-analyses of peer-reviewed studies of multiple myeloma (MM) and farming were performed, using 32 studies published between 1981 and 1996. Prior to the meta-analyses, all studies were reviewed and evaluated for heterogeneity and publication bias. A random-effects meta-analysis includi
Meta-analyses of brain cancer and farming
โ Scribed by Sadik A. Khuder; Anand B. Mutgi; Eric A. Schaub
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1998
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 105 KB
- Volume
- 34
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0271-3586
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
โฆ Synopsis
Background A series of meta-analyses of peer-reviewed studies of brain cancer and farming were performed, using 33 studies published between 1981 and 1996. Methods Before the meta-analyses, all studies were reviewed and evaluated for heterogeneity and publication bias. A random-effect model was used to estimate the combined relative risk. Results A meta-analysis including all the studies yielded an estimator of relative risk equal to 1.30, with a 95% confidence interval (95%CI) of 1.09, 1.56. The estimator of relative risk obtained from a meta-analysis restricted to female farmers was 1.04 (95%CI ฯญ 0.84, 1.29). A third meta-analysis restricted to studies of farmers residing in the central United States resulted in an estimator of relative risk equal 1.25 (95%CI ฯญ 1.09, 1.44). These findings were not influenced by either a publication bias or a specific study design. Conclusion The consistent significant positive findings suggests that there is a weak association between brain cancer and farming. Exposures commonly experienced by farmers including infectious microorganisms and pesticides may contribute to the increased risk of brain cancer.
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES
Studies of the association between polymorphisms within and near the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene and novelty seeking (NS) have produced inconsistent results, raising questions about the strength of the relationship and the methodological conditions under which the relationship holds. We conduct
Much of the literature is turning attention to metaanalyses. This may be positive in light of the many underpowered studies that have been reported. However, one must step back and put this activity in perspective and not lose sight of the important role of the clinical trial in research. Further e